A reader sent me the following chart. In addition to the graphical glitch, I was asked about the study's methodology.

I was able to trace the study back to this page. The study uses a line chart instead of the bar chart with axis not starting at zero. The line shows that web pages ranked higher by Google on the first page tend to have more words, i.e. longer content may help with Google ranking.

On the bar chart, Position 1 is more than 6 times as big as Position 10, if one compares the bar areas. But it's really only 20% larger in the data.

In this case, even the line chart is misleading. If we extend the Google Position to 20, the line would quickly dip below the horizontal axis if the same trend applies.

The line chart includes too much grid, one of Tufte's favorite complaints. The Google position is an integer and yet the chart's gridlines imply that 0.5 rank is possible.

Any chart of this data should supply information about the variance around these average word counts. Would like to see a side-by-side box plot, for example.

Another piece of context is the word counts for results on the second or third pages of Google results. Where are the short pages?

***

Turning to methodology, we learn that the research team analyzed 1 million pages of Google search results, and they also "removed outliers from our data (pages that contained fewer than 51 words and more than 9999 words)."

When you read a line like this, you have to ask some questions:

How do they define "outlier"? Why do they choose 51 and 9,999 as the cut-offs?

What proportion of the data was removed at either end of the distribution?

If these proportions are small, then the outliers are not going to affect that average word count by much, and thus there is no point to their removal. If they are large, we'd like to see what impact removing them might have.

In any case, the median is a better number to use here, or just show us the distribution, not just the average number.

It could well be true that Google's algorithm favors longer content, but we need to see more of the data to judge.